Thank you for the information Dan, Dominik and Didi,

To avoid logging yet another bug for this issue, I've updated bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1459229 
<https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1459229> as you've mentioned with 
the brief of our conversation here.

By the way, it is very useful to name a bonded interface things other than 
bondXYZ, for example, you might have 6 bonds, each of a different network or 
native VLAN.
It helps with debugging, troubleshooting and logging if the interface is named 
after the (native) network, e.g. your iSCSI storage network might have a bond 
called 'storage', while your management or hypervisor network might have a bond 
named 'mgmt' then perhaps you have 'data' bond that might have several vlans 
off it such as 'db' (database), 'dmz', 'staff' etc... depending on how and 
where you chop your network up.

--
Sam McLeod
https://smcleod.net
https://twitter.com/s_mcleod

> On 7 Jan 2018, at 6:08 pm, Yedidyah Bar David <d...@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 7:44 AM, Dan Kenigsberg <dan...@redhat.com 
> <mailto:dan...@redhat.com>> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 5:50 AM, Sam McLeod <mailingli...@smcleod.net 
> <mailto:mailingli...@smcleod.net>> wrote:
> > I'm having a problem where when setting up hosted engine deployment it fails
> > stating that the selected bond name is bad.
> >
> > "code=25, message=bad bond name(s): mgmt)"
> >
> > - Is there a problem similar to
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519807 
> > <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519807> that's known?
> 
> Please note that this is just but one bug in a series/tree of
> related bugs, some of which are open. If you decide to follow
> Dan's suggestion, perhaps reuse one of the others, or perhaps
> even better - open a new one, and eventually one or more will
> be closed as duplicate of one or more of the others. Sadly,
> not all of them link properly to each other, and at least one
> which was fixed caused another bug, so the fix was reverted.
> See also e.g. all of the discussion in:
> 
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1459229 
> <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1459229>
> 
>  
> > - If it seems to be this bug, is it preferred that I simply update the
> > existing, closed issue as I have done, or open a new bug?
> >
> > --
> > Sam McLeod
> > https://smcleod.net <https://smcleod.net/>
> > https://twitter.com/s_mcleod <https://twitter.com/s_mcleod>
> 
> I see that you are trying to use a bond interface named "mgmt".
> To avoid confusion while debugging a system, Vdsm has opted to allow
> only bond names starting with "bond" followed by one or more decimal
> digits. Anything else is considered "bad bond".
> 
> I prefer keeping the "bond" prefix compulsory, but I'd like to hear
> why using different names is useful.
> 
> You can reopen this bug, but please move it to vdsm and rename it: it
> should be something like "Allow any bondXYZ name for bonds" or "Allow
> any bond name" and explain there why it is a good idea.
> 
> Dominik, is there an Engine-side limitation on bond names?
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> Users@ovirt.org <mailto:Users@ovirt.org>
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users 
> <http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users>
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Didi

_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users@ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Reply via email to